This is a post about Justice Scalia, but Daniel McCarthy uses the opportunity to take a swipe at movement conservatism (what else is new) and a rather obtuse swipe at originalism. For this new iteration of Daniel McCarthy talk of nuance, thoughtfulness etc. is a synonym for moderation. But an honest examination of originalism leads to more, not less, radical outcomes. Below is my post which has not yet been approved. I can’t see why it would be censored, unless they are balking at my reference to natural born citizen, but that is a perfectly legit example.
Archive for the 'Judicial Activism' Category
After a number of recent court decisions mandating same-sex “marriage,” many conservatives predicted it was just a matter of time until we’d hear demands for the recognition of group marriage (polyamory).
But there’s a cause more pressing than the “right” of three or more to consider themselves married. That cause is neatly summarized in the following headline and linked story:
Not only does this crisis pertain to the ongoing and escalating War against the Family, but also reveals the great cultural divide that’s only going to escalate, as articles such as this illustrate. In Mexico, you see, the age of consent is 12, rather than 18, as required by those stuffy old Anglos. And laws that enforce the values of white culture are inherently racist, as any tenured radical will kindly explain to you. (Hint: It’s called “white privilege.”)
That’s why I predict lowering the age of consent to 12 will be the next battle in the never-ending Civil Rights crusade. It would strike a double blow against white culture, on both traditional sex roles as well as on traditional cultural norms. It’s a win-win for multiculturalism.
In the name of “racial justice,” a North Carolina judge has overturned the death sentences of three murderers. Here’s an introduction to the “victims of racism” the court has spared:
A Cumberland County judge has sentenced three death row inmates to life in prison without possibility for parole after finding that racial discrimination in jury selection played a key role in securing their death sentences.
Judge Gregory Weeks issued the ruling on Thursday for Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters and Quintel Augustine after the challenged their sentences under the 2009 Racial Justice Act.
Walters was convicted of killing two women in a gang initiation ritual. Golphin was convicted of murdering two law enforcement officers at a traffic stop. Augustine was convicted of killing a Fayetteville police officer.
Commenting on the case, Ken Rose of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation proclaimed that the ruling proves “our capital punishment system is infected by racial bias.”
But if that’s true, then SOMEONE had to commit an act of racial bias. Who was it? What exactly did this person do that demonstrated racial bias? Is Mr. Rose going to prosecute that person?
Or is it possible that no single perpetrator can be identified because “racism” is what defines Western society? I think that’s what Rose is claiming. He’s not alone – that argument can be found here. And if that is the case, then the entire fabric of Western culture must be dismantled. Private property, the right of association, inheritance, any aspect of a free society that results in a “disparate impact” for protected minorities is a target.
We are racing toward Third-World anarchy.
If you scroll down to the comments section of the numerous articles on the secession petitions, you’ll encounter much snark and attitude toward those of us who want to reclaim self-government. We’re ignorant, we’re racist, we’re treasonous – why, our motivations are CLEARLY anything OTHER THAN the motivations we state for supporting secession, which is to stop an out-of-control central government.
After all, who in his right mind would want to secede from an authoritarian regime that’s busily constructing a vast, secret infrastructure for the purpose of conducting citizen surveillance?
This regime, by the way, now has the power to arrest and detain American citizens as long as it wants. Who says the central government has that power? For one, there’s the Obama administration itself:
“The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”
Yes, let’s make sure some government employee with a law degree assures us the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed before we trash the law of the land. All in the name of “national security,” of course. What will Obama’s supporters say when Team Obama unleashes that power to crush dissent?
And I wonder what those supporters will do when he starts to reward his supporters in the name of promoting racial equality? It’s coming:
If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.
President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
What will Obama’s young white supporters think when they’re unfairly denied jobs? It’s going to happen – there’s no other way to make racial quotas work. Any racial imbalances in the workplace that reflect those of the school system – you have heard of the black-white performance gap, haven’t you? – will result in swift, harsh action.
Who remembers Obama’s gaffe last March, when, during a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, he unknowingly whispered into a live microphone, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”?
You don’t remember that? Well, you’re about to find out just how flexible Obama can be now that he’s armed with a mandate as well as new, unconstitutional powers to impose his radical agenda.
Let’s see how silly secession appears then.
The clues for today’s Supreme Court decision were actually found in the immigration and campaign finance decisions made by the court a few days ago. This is very much a nationalistic Supreme Court. This will be the Roberts Court’s legacy. It does not like the states going off to try and decide policy on its own. Thus it tells Montana it cannot write its own campaign finance laws; it tells Arizona it can’t write it’s own immigration laws and tells the states who filed suit against individual mandate sorry, the mandate is a tax and Congress can tax. End of discussion.
Like immigration, the issue goes back to Congress, which as we are reading in a very good article on TAC by Leo Linbeck III, is utterly disfunctional right now, which is why the states have entered the realm of policy to decide on its own because they are tired of waiting.
The mandate is out there as “freedom” issue for those wishing to pursue it. But many Republicans who once supported the mandate (before being against it) may just decide to drop the issue. Will Romney pick it up? Given that he shares a similar background as Roberts as pro-big business “conservative”, me thinks he won’t make the health care issue all that important to his campaign. Big business has wanted the politicians to do something about health care costs (which Romney tried to do in Massachusetts)for a long time and the mandate which forces persons to have health insurance was a way be able to steer business to them. Why change it? And given insurance company donations to the Romney campaign, I doubt if he will.
It’s hysterical how liberals use the language of conservatism to push their agenda. Here in North Carolina, liberals are resorting to deceptive slogans in their campaign against Amendment One, which will define marriage as between one man and one woman. Liberals claim they oppose the amendment so they can “keep government out of our lives” and expand the “institution of marriage” to homosexuals. This blatant hypocrisy reveals how desperate liberals are – the latest polls indicate voters will approve the amendment by a comfortable margin.
But to borrow a slogan from the homosexual lobby, “It gets better!” The latest Creative Loafing features what’s supposed to be a tear-jerker about two women who, we’re told, live in fear of Amendment One. They live that life of fear in their posh lakefront home on Lake Norman. One is described as the director of marketing for Wells Fargo and the other is a “stay-at-home mom,” which is normally a term of derision for leftists.
What the article conveniently leaves out is that same-sex “marriage” is ALREADY illegal in North Carolina by statute. The amendment will only protect existing law against judicial activism.
Liberals – you just can’t trust ‘em!
Does Mitt Romney get this? Does Santorum? Does Gingrich? The Republican primary electorate has chosen the wrong candidate. The three stooges would be afraid to say what Paul is saying here even if they understood it.
The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state– a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.
But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades,…
The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.
Lincoln loving Newt Gingrich wouldn’t know federalism and states’ rights if they bit him on the rear.
DC’s jihad against traditional America just got a little uglier:
California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Tuesday.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to be appealed, to either the full court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. But supporters of same-sex marriages cheered the decision when it was announced outside the courthouse Tuesday morning.
And now for the shocker of the century:
The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the judges who voted to uphold the act, clerked for Scalia, and was nominated by George W. Bush.
Actually, this is two shockers in one! Not only has the Commerce Clause been used ONCE AGAIN to grant the central government powers never contemplated by the people, a Bush-appointed judge sided with Obama.
Still think electing Republicans makes any difference?
I can’t resist quoting my blog post from last September, on a court ruling that said the Commerce Clause gave DC final say on gun laws:
I mean really — you ask the Feds how much power they have over you and the answer is “lots!” That’s a surprise? And they base their authority on the commerce clause, which lovers of big government have turned into Silly Putty. Yawwwn. …
Guess what will happen when Obamacare faces the exact same challenge? Think the commerce clause can be stretched to cover that, too?
Anyone out there care to make a little bet?
Peach Pundit has the story. Sorry, I would link to the original Atlanta Journal-Constitution (know affectionately in these parts as the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation) article but the link is broken. As I say in the PP thread (with minor revisions):
I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, but I do think this issue needs a thorough public airing. The anti-birthers have often said, “If you don’t think Obama is eligible, then prove it in court.” But that implies that you could actually get a fair hearing in court. Here not only did Taitz and her client not get a fair hearing, they got fined for even bringing the issue up. Clearly the message from this court is “go away, and don’t come back.” So I am sure, in the name of basic fairness and consistency, that the “prove it in court” brigade will denounce this decision because it denies the issue a fair hearing.
I have always thought it was naive to believe that this would be settled in court. There is no judge who wants this hot potato, and they will find some way to get rid of it, as this judge did. It is the job of the press to investigate and get to the bottom of this and they have been stunningly incurious. The press (and that includes non-professional bloggers) is supposed to challenge the conventional wisdom and the powers that be, not be pristine conduits of pure unadulterated conventional wisdom.
Part of the problem with “proving it in court” is that it is not clear what the appropriate venue would be. Who is the rightful plaintiff? What is the rightful jurisdiction? I’m not comfortable with these military members refusing orders to make a point, which is what the case in question was about.
In ruling against the will of the people when he struck down California’s Prop 8, Judge Walker based his decision on liberals’ favorite part of the Constitution:
Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 14th amendment is the Swiss Army knife for Alinskyite and Gramscian social revolutionaries. Here are some other significant decisions based on that amendment:
Murray vs. Curlett, 1963, banned prayer in schools
Roe v. Wade, 1973, created the right to abortion
Stone v. Graham, 1980, banned 10 Commandments displays
Plyler v. Doe, 1982, made anchor babies US citizens
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, struck down anti-sodomy laws
Notice that every one of these Supreme Court decisions assaulted traditional society while gutting States’ Rights. The radicals who intend to reconstruct society know they need a powerful weapon to impose their agenda, and there’s no better weapon for that than a centralized government with no limits to its power.
From the NY Times:
Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.
…“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”
This is a perfect microcosm for how the right and left view how a constitutional republic should work. Opponents of Obamacare took to the appropriate venue and spoke at the ballot box. And what instrument do proponents of Obamacare hope to utilize to thwart the will of the good people of Missouri? Where will they wage their battle?
“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.
Historians, political scientists, and legal experts attempt to decipher strange document found in the city in which it is believed to have been composed:
Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: “We The People. . . .”
Some experts allege the document chartered something called a “republic” with “limited powers,” something that modern political scientists agree would only prevent the government from doing good things.
“This was clearly written by backward, unsophisticated people,” said one noted scholar of government.
In general I support the decision, and I opposed McCain/Feingold because I thought it was unconstitutional and bad policy. If the First Amendment was meant to protect anything at all, it was meant to protect political speech. It wasn’t meant to protect porn and nude dancing contrary to what the ACLU would have you believe, but it was intended to protect political speech.
That said, I do have some concerns. I don’t buy the idea that corporations are people. (If you drive a corporation out of business are you guilty of murder? ) Nor do I buy the idea entirely that money is speech, but what the money buys such as TV ads is speech. Also, since I reject the incorporation doctrine, States are free to regulate campaign finance however they see fit within the limits of their own State constitutions.
Wow! Austin Bramwell has in no uncertain terms taken issue with Kevin Gutzman on the Constitution. This is a rather brash denunciation. Bramwell seems to revel in being brash. I disagree with his take and am working on an article length reply. Until then chew on this amongst yourselves.
I don’t know how many of you saw this segment of Rachel Maddow’s show a few weeks ago, but Pat Buchanan did an excellent job of bluntly telling the truth about demographics in America, past and present. Specifically, he blasts Obama for making an obvious affirmative action pick by appointing Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Whatever your opinion of Buchanan, he must be given credit for letting her have it when it comes to this particular issue. He did not mince words.
Obviously Maddow is offended at the historical reality that white folks were the exclusive authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the rest of the framework of American law and jurisprudence. Since there’s no “diversity” in those accomplishments, they have to be reshaped, corrected, and molded into something else entirely. Hence, we get stuck with Supreme Court justices like Ginsburg and now Sotomayor.
One of our editors alerted me to the results of the European Parlimentary elections and it looks like the British National Party will get its first-ever representative in the MEP along with Geert Wilders party in Holland. You can check out the results here.
We have a new submission from writer J.J. Jackson. Check it out here.